28s - Hexanon-M vs CV Ultron

[chrispiper]

I've had my eye on a 28mm lens for awhile and it seems like the Classifieds lately are overflowing with them. I thought I wanted the Hexanon most but knew that the price was a little out of reach, so I decided my second choice was an Ultron f/1.9.

Now there are nice examples of both available and I'm feeling the urge to get one of them. The Ultron is faster and less expensive, yet the Hexanon just seems like a more satisfying (better built, more solid, better resale etc) lens. I have a 50 Hex f/2 and had a 90 Hex f/2.8 and love(d) both, so I'm a little biased in that direction. I do tend to shoot low light though and the extra speed of the Ultron is not to be dismissed lightly.

Questions:

Can one be said to have a more "vintage" look (i.e. Sonnar) as opposed to a "modern" (i.e. Biogon) look? Am I unduly biased towards the Hex? I have a 35 CV Color Skopar and it's an excellent performer so I'm no brand loyalist. I do value things like craftsmanship and build quality, is the Ultron up to the same quality as my Color Skopar?

Bottom line, what's your feeling as to which is "best"?

Thanks,
Chris

 

[ferider]

If you get a good 1.9 Ultron, it is very, very sharp with moderate contrast. And, due to speed, you can do things, you cann't do with any other 28.

The advantages of the 28 Hex are size and built. I don't think it has higher contrast than the Ultron, at f2.8 and up, the look seems very similar. The Ultron has good resale value, too, so you can safely try.

 

[chrispiper]

>>
The advantages of the 28 Hex are size and built.
<<

I assume the Hex is a little smaller than the Ultron, is this correct? Is there any finder blockage with the Hex?

I also assume the Ultron is built similar to my Color Skopar?

Chris

 

[ferider]

The Hex will block but much less so.

Hard to say about the Color Skopar build comparison. Maybe similar to the C, but not as good as the PII version. The 28 Ultron is very similar to the 35 Ultron, if you have seen that one. Chrome ones seem more robust. And there certainly is sample variation, wrt resolution and flare.

 

[aizan]

how about the 28/2 ultron? it has a focusing tab.

 

[chrispiper]

re: 28/2 Ultron - I've read that the f/1.9 might be more my speed in terms of the rendering. Any thoughts on the f/1.9 vs. f/2 in terms of the images?

 

[DNG]

I've owned both, 28/2 and 28/1.9 ASPH.... I still own the 28/1.9 ASPH... I like the rendering better. and, I think it is better Built also.. And I love Big Focus Rod, (not a tab)

 

[chrispiper]

DNG - can you explain the rendering differences between the f/1.9 and f/2?

 

[maggieo]

I've got both CV 28s and they're both great. If you like the wee one, you'll like the 1.9, too.

Pix from each:

28mm Voigtländer Color Skopar...


Voigtländer 28mm Ultron f/1.9

 

[Bruin]

I remember Tom A compared the two Ultrons not long after the new one came out... try a search for his posts on it. From what I've gathered on the forums, the F2 is higher contrast and flares less. Basically a more "modern" look. Dunno about resolution, corners, or vignetting.

I love my Ultron F2; with a hood, it's the smallest 28mm F2 out there. I own a M-Hex 50/2 and had a 90/2.8 and the new Ultron is nearly as solid and smooth as the Konicas. And if you get a good sample, you'll have NO complaints about its performance.

 

[rwchisholm]

I've owned both the Ultrons (actually a few of each over the years). I think, bottom line, that if you can get a good copy of 1.9, that this is a killer lens. I have owned 3, 2 were awesome, one was soft wide open. The 1.9 is the 28 I use now.

I had 2 of the f/2 ultrons, and never liked either. The first copy was soft wide open. The second was sharper, and usable, but I never liked the drawing compared to the 1.9.

 

[tj01]

I just printed this. Loved the 28mm M-Hexanon.

 

[tbarker13]

I made the switch recently from an ultron to the hexanon. They are both very nice lenses. I do miss the speed of the ultron, but in the end, I opted for the smaller hexanon because of its smaller size. And, as you mentioned, the hexanons are just so well built.

 

[DNG]

DNG - can you explain the rendering differences between the f/1.9 and f/2?

I only have images right now of the 28/1.9 used on my G1
Here's a couple:
It is how it renders textures. like wood, clothing, skin. (my taste of course)

I have not taken any images with close views of people with the 28/2 before I sold it 🙁. But, I am pleased with the 28/1.9 ASPH.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
28/1.9 ASPH on G1

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 28/2 is on my M5, I had not bought the G1 yet.
This is on BW400CN. Both are sharp. The 28/2 may have a higher natural contrast. I like the slightly lower natural contrast though of the 28/1.9 ASPH, which I like better for skin and textures.
I most say too, that I may have over sharpened these a bit. at the time, I was newer to scanning film and developing the files.

 

[ampguy]

I've had both, and found the Hexanon to have more contrast, less flare, and a bit less distortion. I could have had a bad CV one though. The low contrast and resolution at 1.9 was not good either, so for me it was always a 2.8 or slower lens. With the M-hex, it was pretty much parked between 2.8 and 4, sometimes 5.6 for a landscape:

 

[chrispiper]

Well, all the Hexanons (and a nice looking Biogon too) are gone, seemingly in a flash between yesterday and today. I guess I'll have a little more time to think, as well as put away a few more dollars. I don't like the feeling of succumbing to GAS so "missing" a deal isn't such a bad thing. Thanks to all for putting up shots and discussing the lenses - good food for thought.